On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:11:24 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:

George W. Bush changed the equation by calling their bluff and responding
with substantial military force. The strategy is working, and the
terrorists' world is now disrupted. Not eliminated, but disrupted.

I would agree, up to a point. I can't think of *any* President that would
have responded to 9/11 with a token response. It was an act of war, and
demanded a substantial, and appropriate, military force.


But the calculus from the other side has now changed also. The specific
person and party sitting in the Oval Office has now become a crucially
important factor to al Qaida -- a matter of strategic significance. They
know that George Bush can and will stay after them - with or without
'approval' from the so-called world community. They must suspect strongly
that any other candidate that campaigns on a basis of opposition to Bush's
strategy would likely be less dedicated to the pursuit, and more willing to
seek a negotiated settlement, to let them win a little something if they
will promise to stop being naughty boys. In short, the outcome of this
election is now part and parcel of our enemy's strategy.

Yeah, but something is lost here, al Qaeda. I remember very little
anti-Bush sentiment for his going after bin Laden. It was his Iraq
diversion that upset many, myself included. We have 9,000 troops in
Afghanistan going after the man who declared war on us, and is a clear
threat. We have 130,000 men in Iraq, which was always a questionable
threat.

The good news is that many foreign reports have bin Laden bottled up and
we have just sent in Task Force 121, so maybe . . .

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=233d8bee9cb18264